The Turtle Island Restoration Network has filed an appeal with the Marin County Board of Supervisors against a proposed residential development in the San Geronimo Valley, following a failed attempt to sway the county’s Planning Commission last month. On April 27, the commission voted 6-0 to deny an appeal filed by Turtle Island—the parent group of the Salmon Protection and Watershed Network, or SPAWN—in opposition to Israel Saban’s proposed 870-square-foot development in Lagunitas. The county’s Community Development Agency recommended that the commission approve the project on the grounds that it included several features that would improve, not degrade, current habitat in the Lagunitas Creek watershed. Turtle Island expressed concern that by considering the valley in terms of development already present and not from a pristine, development-less standpoint, the commission could set a troublesome precedent for future development in the county’s sensitive aquatic areas. Threats to endangered coho salmon downstream from the proposed project, Turtle Island argued, is particularly concerning. “How much development can we have before we lose the salmon?” queried Turtle Island’s legal director, Doug Karpa, at the appeal hearing in April. “The question here isn’t what are the impacts of this one project on this one parcel, but what are the impacts of the development standard and approach that’s used here if repeated everywhere else.” Despite Mr. Karpa’s elocutions, planning commissioners elected to uphold the staff recommendation that the project be approved. The key point for that recommendation was the stipulation that the project did not merit the need for an environmental impact report, due to the fact that the county determined Mr. Saban’s project did not have “a reasonable possibility of resulting in significant environmental effects on the environment,” according to county environmental planning manager Rachel Reed. It was enough to sway the commission. “The issue is the particular project,” said Commissioner Wade Holland. “And even though you might be able to claim that there are going to be significant environmental impacts downstream in the future, unless you can relate those to this particular project, then no E.I.R. is required.” The appeal hearing is scheduled for the July 28 supervisors’ meeting.